David Upton v. Aref Fakhoury

MEMORANDUM

David Upton appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus as moot. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Because Upton challenges the validity of his parole revocation, and has since been released from prison, he must demonstrate continuing collateral consequences to avoid mootness. The possibility that Upton’s prior revocation, or the allegedly false and misleading information in his parole violation report, will be used against him in subsequent parole proceedings is too speculative to satisfy the case or controversy requirement. Cf. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 14 , 118 S.Ct. 978 , 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998) (declining to find collateral consequences of a prior parole revocation because, inter alia, under Missouri law a single parole revocation “ ‘[does] not render an individual ineligible for parole[,] [but is] simply one factor, among many, that may be considered by the parole authority in determining whether there is a substantial risk that the parole candidate will not conform to the reasonable conditions of parole”) (quoting Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624 , 633 n. 13, 102 S.Ct. 1322 , 71 L.Ed.2d 508…